What's the Difference Between Planned Parenthood and Kermit Gosnell

What's the difference between notorious abortionist (and criminal) Kermit Gosnel and Planned Parenthood, the nation's largest abortion committer? Well, Gosnell was caught red-handed a few years back, and ultimately lacked the resources to keep the story buried. Planned Parenthood, on the other hand, is a giant in the industry, and thus will be radically protected at every step of the way. They've now been caught--this is video 7 of something like 12 to be released by CMP--delivering an infant alive, then killing the infant to remove his brains for profit.

Shocking, yes. Surprising, no.

Remember: when it was Gosnell, the media talking point quickly became that this is why we need Planned Parenthood and others--that they run "high-class" operations which follow the laws, and all that. If they're breaking this law in such a grotesque and obvious manner, what other laws might they be breaking?

A full-fledged investigation should be following, but Obama and his cronies are too closely linked to Planned Parenthood to allow for this. The investigation should go beyond the show-trial (meant to prove no wrongdoing) given to Louis Lerner. A real investigation might just find even more damning evidence of criminal activity, and perhaps also criminal negligence. Gosnell was no better than the worst terrors of the so-called "back alley abortion," and that perversely became a defense for the other abortion providers. I think a real and honest investigation may show that the defense is base don a lie (the whole industry is, after all).

Planned Parenthood et alia delenda est.

----
Update: My friend Chelsea Zimmerman makes some good points about this being just the tip of the iceberg--in more than one sense.

Update 2: Also worth a read, since I basically am on the side that says that lying is itself evil. Key passages:

I have neither said nor do I believe any of that, just as when St. Thomas Aquinas said that all lying was sinful, he did not mean the Hebrew midwives were culpable for sin or that lying was worse then killing the firstborn of Israel. I think it is obvious that all these parties are trying to honor God, and I reckon they will hear “Well done” at the Pearly Gates.

1. It is consequentialist thinking to argue “Let us do evil that good may come of it.” It does not matter to the Church that the evil is a small one and the good end a large one. Because once you grant the premise that you can do evil for a good end, you have given away the farm and granted the very premise that ultimately makes abortion thinkable in the first place. After all, as any number of people will tell you, a fetus and a zygote are just teeny tiny things too. What are they compared to a lifetime of poverty and suffering for a teenage girl who just made a mistake?

2. It is what the Church means by “scandal” to try to get somebody to agree to commit grave evil for the sake of a photo op. And, indeed, it is more serious to do this when you know that they are likely to agree to it due to habits of sin, just as it is a sin to press a drink into the hands of an alcoholic when you *know* he is an addict, while there is no sin to offer a friend a beer.

This is a pretty good summary of my stance here, too.

The Media Sure Does a Good Job...

...of using facts to obscure the truth. Headline: "Woman outside Planned Parenthood says flaming object was thrown at her." The headline reports some facts, while obscuring what was actually happening. The headline, as read by the casual observer, the low-information viewer (a substantial number of people reading the headline) will be interpreted to mean that some anti-abortion protester has thrown a flaming object (incendiary device? it was a Molotov cocktail) at a random woman who was approaching Planned Parenthood to use its "services."

But that's not actually what happened. Instead, it was a hit-and-run incident in which somebody threw this Molotov Cocktail at a group of peaceful protesters, a group who was praying in front of the Planned Parenthood, praying for an end to that evil organization. This group was with Central Texas Coalition for Life--I know a few people who are involved with that organization--and was almost certainly marked as such. So, in actuality, this was an example of pro-abortion violence against a peaceful pro-life protests--such things are actually quite common and at times even deadly--and not of anti-abortion violence against a pro-abortion victim (such occurrences are rare but typically receive saturation coverage).

There is a saying that God can write straight with crooked lines. Our media seems to strive to do the opposite feat, which is writing crookedly with straight lines.

Certifiable Insanity

That's how I would describe every member of the Minnesota State High School League not named Emmett Keenan. Public showers of the sort used by students in high school gym class (and sports' teams) can be awkward enough as it is. This just goes over the top. Oh, and coed hotel rooms? Not a brilliant idea either.

On Victim-Blaming

I suppose this is not entirely unrelated to the insanity at Ferguson, but it is a sort of different topic: it is intellectually dishonest to dismiss precautions, warnings, and (after the fact) lesson-drawing from one's misfortunes as "blaming the victim." Here is Dr. Budziszewski breaking down the intellectual and moral silliness which pervades most cries of "blaming the victim":

Why is it so difficult to make a few simple distinctions? The perpetrator is entirely to blame for robbery and assault. But the victim in this case is to blame for foolhardiness and indiscretion. The victim’s foolishness does not mitigate the perpetrator’s guilt for his crime. But the perpetrator’s guilt does not mitigate the victim’s blame for his folly. The perpetrator deserves our reprobation, and should suffer the full penalty of law. But the victim, who has already suffered the penalty of natural consequences, deserves our pity -- and a stern talking-to.

In his postscript, the good professor addresses what might be called the opposite fallacy, which is when the victim blames himself for something which actually might not be his fault. Actually, his advice is good general advice to at least a substantial minority, if not an outright majority, of college students today: drop out of college, get a blue collar job for a few years, and then when you have learned what you can form the school of hard knocks, return to the academy ready to earn and education of the sort attainable there.

Catcalling in a Galaxy Far, Far Away

You have surely by now heard of--if not actually watched--the video of the woman who walked around New York silently for 10 hours and was subjected to a bit of verbal harassment (along with a few unsolicited compliments and salutations). Perhaps you have also seen the response video of the man who walked around the same areas for three hours and was subjected to a roughly equal amount of verbal harassment?

These videos seem to demonstrate that some people in New York are jerks (but we already knew that!), though that is not of course the narrative being drawn from them. Actually, from the first of the two videos, the narrative varies depending on which professionally aggrieved or perpetually offended group is the one doing the narrating.

To b fair, there were a few jerks in the 10 hours' worth of the woman walking. There were a few more jerks in the three hours' worth of the man's walking*. All of which goes into a personal theory of mine: men and women receive about the same amount of verbal abuse and harassment on average, but we deal with it differently. I do not here intend to go into details, but might I suggest that this is a large part of what's behind the typical woman's complaints about harassment from colleagues.

Indeed, I suspect this is also a large part of the harassment women face in the STEM fields, where such things are alleged to happen frequently. In truth, guys pretty much do this to each other too, though admittedly they may focus a bit more on the one obviously different person in the group (e.g. the one female present). It should be remembered that this is sometimes how we bond, including how we at times bond with coworkers (light hazing).

I can't explain it either, but it does seem to me that the disruption of this particular bonding behavior is one consequence (intended or otherwise) of an integrated workforce. Certainly it is a consequence of the disappearance of mens' space (e.g. the increasing forbidden-ness of any men-only clubs or establishments).

And for a palette cleanser, here is a video of what it's like to be Princess Leia in New York:

<<<OVER>>>

*The woman got 100+ instances of harassment in 10 hours--basically an average of once every 6 minutes. The man got 30+ instances of harassment in 3 hours--basically, an average of once every 6 minutes.

This Brings Back Memories

My friend Shawn Nelson has uploaded his very first production movie to YouTube. I remember when they screened it in the MU. Brings back some memories:



Happy Friday.

Behold, The War on Women

Sometimes I wonder if girls really are exposed to more un-realistic expectations than boys.

How much of the so-called "war on women" is encapsulated in this graphic?

How Bad Is ObamaCare? The Ads

How bad are the Obamacare ads? They're so bad, apparently, that even Planned Parenthood is decrying them. Oh, they tell the truth alright, and it ain't pretty. Even Planned Parenthood dislikes them (mistaking them for anti-obamacare ads). Screenshot from Planned Parenthood Colorado:

Caption of their tweet: "Unfortunate that anti-obamacare folks are #slutshaming #women who use #birthcontrol #ThanksObamacare twitpic.com/dxrep"

So yeah, about that #Waronwomen....